I was asked in another thread to explain what exactly George W. Bush has done wrong as president. I decided to start a new thread for this purpose since it would bring the other thread to far off topic. Work is sort of hammering me right now, so I'll only be able to update it sporadically, but hopefully I'll get to all of the points before election day.

Point 1 : Iraq

George W. Bush made his case for invading Iraq on three main points - Saddam Hussein was claimed to have weapons of mass destruction (wmd), Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is just generally not a nice guy.

The first point, it turns out is just plain false. This leaves three possibilities for his use of wmd as a justification for war - he lied, he exaggerated or he was fooled. None of these is a quality we should want in a president. If he lied to achieve something as serious as this, he should be in jail, not in the White House. If he exaggerated it's really not any better. If he was fooled, than it definitely brings his judgement into question. Whatever the case is, his lies, tall tales or foolishness all damage the US in attempts to combat terrorism because they seriously damage the credibility that the US has. Can't you just see the exchange now? "Switzerland, you need to close this bank account because it is a front for Al Qaeda." "How do you know?" "We have intelligence information." "Oh yeah? From the same source that told the tale of the Nigerian uranium? The account stays open." "Saudi Arabia, you need to arrest these people." "Why?" "We have intelligence that says they are terrorists." "Really" Are you going to hold them in those mobile anthrax labs? We're not arresting them without some evidence from a credible source."

I'd also like to point out that claims that UN weapons inspectors and sanctions had failed to do their job is a little bit thin when, apparently, they did prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring wmd.

The second point the administration sort of threw out there and then didn't really push as much as the first point. It's generally believed that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were not allies as Al Qaeda was opposed to Hussein's secular Baathism. He might have supported other, smaller terrorist organizations, but the 9/11 connection was just never there. The administration seemed to back off this point after initially raising it. Probably because they knew the evidence couldn't even be fabricated for this one.

The third point is true. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. Him no longer being in power is a good thing. That doesn't mean the war was a good thing. The mistake people make when using the "we got rid of a brutal dictator, so it's worth it," argument is that the comparison is not "Attack Iraq or do nothing." It should be "Attack Iraq or use those resources elsewhere." Every soldier who is in Iraq dodging car bombs is a soldier that isn't available to search for Bin Laden on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Do you think North Korea has anything to fear when it knows that the US can't possibly call its bluff since so much of the US military is tied up in Iraq looking for wmd that aren't there rather than dealing with wmd that are known to be there? (I'm not advocating an invasion of North Korea, I'm just saying that the US doesn't even have the ability to bluff since all it's cards are in the Middle East now.)

If you want to make a humanitarian argument - that people who once lived under tyranny now live under anarchy that theoretically will become democracy one day, that is fine. But two things - it claims a problem as solved before it is and it once again represents a misallocation of resources. People are still being blown up for simple things like trying to become a police officer in Iraq. If you actually bothered to read this whole post, use the word "ook" in your reply. Tension between the various ethnic groups and religious sects remain. Medical care is sparse and inadequate as is power. Things may well improve and a real democracy may well be in place eventually, but claiming that it all is worth it because the Iraqi people are so much better off is a bit premature. In addition, if your goal is to alleviate human misery, the >$100 billion spent and to be spent on this war seems a bit low yield in terms of human misery avoided per $. You want to alleviate human misery? Vaccinate 3rd world children, distribute condoms in Africa to prevent AIDS, build water treatment plants and hospitals, give scholarships to train doctors from the 3rd world. You want to foster democracy? Build western style schools in the middle east - without education you can?t have democracy. Instead of going out of your way to keep people out of the US, bring people in so they can see democracy for themselves. Most importantly, show people that democracies work for peace, not for war on fabricated charges.

Yes, Saddam Hussein being in custody is a good thing. Yes, ultimately, life for the Iraqi people will probably eventually be better than it was under Saddam (or, if you like, you can even say it is already) but that doesn?t mean the war was worth it. If I spent $1000 on an ice cream cone, would the argument that it was worth it because I really like ice cream really be a good one?

Saddam's overthrow is a silver lining on a really, really dark stormcloud. It isn't justification for the war to begin with nor does it make it all worthwhile in hindsight.

This option is very doubtful, IMO, but even if Bush had lied, he probably would have done so with the advice/blessings/pressure of his advisors or from Congress. Politics isn't the most moral field to enter, but the blame and ridicule cannot be placed on Bush alone, even if it was a lie. Besides, it would take a lot of work for intelligence from other countries to fabricate a lie on such a grand scale just to get oil or oust a dictator. There is no way Bush acted alone if he lied to the nation and the world, and I seriously doubt that he would lead such a grand scheme just for an excuse to invade another country.

Bush exaggerated

This is actually palpable, but the extent to which he exaggerated is what needs to be questioned. Exaggeration is not always visible enough to harm anyone or even cost them any comfort. I believe that Bush did exaggerate the threat of Iraq's WMDs, but he needed the public consensus to go to war in Iraq without riots breaking out throughout the country (and so that he might have a shot at re-election, I'll concede that). I'm pretty sure that Bush at least suspected WMDs in Iraq, and perhaps exaggeration was the only way to gain America's bittersweet and partial blessing. Or maybe it was just an excuse, but he could not have been positive whether there were or weren't there, and wanting to check for them, is not wrong, IMO, even if that means exaggerating to convince a less than stellar (generally speaking) public that the war is not so bad after all.

Bush was fooled

I only have one thing to say about this one. Much of the world's intelligence agreed with Bush, so if Bush is unfit to lead and worthy of ridicule, than so are many other world leaders. Thinking like that is awfully pessimistic, if you ask me.
____________
>_>

Great post, bort. Unfortunatly it's still quite possible that Bush will be re-elected.

Quote:This option is very doubtful, IMO, but even if Bush had lied, he probably would have done so with the advice/blessings/pressure of his advisors or from Congress.

But you are forgeting that going to war with Iraq had many advantages for those advisors. They could lie just as well. As long as the official reports claim that there was a good chance of WMD's existing, it was enough proof.

Quote:I believe that Bush did exaggerate the threat of Iraq's WMDs, but he needed the public consensus to go to war in Iraq without riots breaking out throughout the country (and so that he might have a shot at re-election, I'll concede that).

You could also try to justify lies with this argument. The public has the right to riot if there is an unjust war about to break, isn't this what freedom is all about?

Quote:Much of the world's intelligence agreed with Bush

This means just about nothing. A lot of people had good reasons to attack Iraq and agreeing with Bush was rather strategic. Others were just forced to agree with the US, who are without doubt the strongest and most influential country right now.
____________

I forgot to explicitly say so, but a corollary to the loss of US credibility is the damaged relations with other nations. Although much has been made of the so called coalition of the willing, there is a notable lack of World Powers in that list. Only 2/5 of the permanent members of the Security council were on board. In addition to those, Germany was notably missing from the coalition. Now, I'm not going to pretend that Germany, France, Russia or China are altruistic in any way shape or form. Nor are they blameless in the breakdown of International Relations. However, the Bush administration deserves a healthy share of the blame as well -- comments such as the infamous "Old Europe-New Europe" one and the general "with us or against us" tone used in the "diplomacy" leading up to the war were counterproductive and damaging. Germany and France especially have for the last 50 years been close allies of the US. They were willing to give their blessing and help when they felt we were doing the right thing -- witness Afghanistan. They continue to help us with security issues despite "Punish France, ignore Germany," comments by administration officials such as Condeleezza Rice. If we expect, even demand aid in the future, we need to treat our allies with dignity and respect and listen to their concerns and input. The US is capable of going it alone on many things, but it cannot finish this "war on terrorism" if it alienates all those who can help. It's sort of like the star player on a sports team -- he can make a lot of plays on his own but he can't win the game without the support of his teammates. How many quarterbacks win a game if they're punishing their offensive line?
____________
Drive by posting.

Point A:
Both sides (for example those that support and those do not suport bush) can simply swear on one foot that they are right in their decision.

If both sides were swearing this that they are right. then 100% fact is atleast one side is half ignorant.

Point B: if your not a democrat or one of those sides, then you must have your 100% true affirmation that there is someone better who is sponsored by people with money to be a canidate for our elections

I guess the question is, how can you swear to yourself that you are correct.

Also@ I do blive that WMD would alter the earths weather mobility (possibly .)
____________!!Never

Before I start, perhaps it would do good to remind ourselves of some parts of Powell's speech on WMD's, as quoted in the Iraq thread by Dargon some 49 pages prior to the present one

1. Mr. Powell presented a communication intercept of a conversation between an Iraqi colonel and a general. In the intercept, Mr. Powell says, one of the officers says: "We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left."

2. Mr. Powell presented an illustrated satellite image of a weapons munitions facility, which is known to have held chemical weapons. He also showed pictures of what he said was a ballistic missile facility two days before the inspectors arrived, with vehicles outside including a crane for moving missiles.

4. Iraqi scientists have been told by Saddam Hussein that they were not to agree to be interviewed outside Iraq - in contravention of the UN resolution. Anyone agreeing to be interviewed was told they would be treated as a spy. Saddam Hussein threatened Iraqi scientists with death if they divulged information to UN weapons inspectors, Mr. Powell said.

5. Iraq he said was in possession of mobile research laboratories. He showed diagrams of these alleged mobile factories. He said the facilities were sophisticated, and could produce items such as anthrax.

6. Mr. Powell played a communications intercept in which one officer appeared to tell another to remove the expression "nerve agents" from all wireless instructions.

7. Powell also showed pictures of what he said was a chemical weapons facility, with arrows pointing to areas of disturbed earth. He said these were evidence that the Iraqis had removed the entire crust of earth in the area so there would be no evidence of the years of chemical weapons work there.

8. Powell said the Iraqi authorities had conducted experiments on people, with one source reporting that 1,600 convicted prisoners had been transferred to special units where such experiments were carried out. Autopsies were later conducted to check the results, he said.

9. He said Iraq already possessed two of the three components needed to produce a nuclear bomb

10. Powell said Iraq has programs to produce ballistic missiles which can fly more than 1,200 kilometers. He said such missiles were not intended for self-defense, but to deliver chemical, biological and - if we let him - nuclear warheads.

11. Mr. Powell said Iraq "harbors" a terrorist network headed by al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab Zarqawi. This network helped establish another poison and explosives training camp in north-east Iraq. Powell showed a picture he said was of this camp.

12. He said Zarqawi was teaching operatives how to produce Ricin and other poisons. He said Baghdad has an agent in the senior ranks of Ansar al-Islam, the group holding an enclave in north-east Iraq.

13. He showed photographs of a number of al-Qaeda members linked to a network operating through North Africa, Europe, and in the former Soviet Union, including Georgia and Chechnya. He said close ties had been forged between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence sources since the early 1990s.

14. Iraqis visited Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and provided training to al-Qaeda members. "Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al-Qaeda together," Mr. Powell said. He said Iraq maintained active links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, using its embassy in Pakistan as a "liaison office".

And that doesn’t even include the mass of evidence that he summarized as previously delineated by Bush.

I am going to love hearing you try to find that specific evidence pre-Powell speech…good luck…lol

I'm intruiged to wonder just how many of these the Bush supporters still feel could have been true...

I'd personally believe Bush and Blair were at best over-eager and at worst liars about the WMD issue. It's possible that both could be the case.

At best: They failed completely to ensure the proper checks were done on the evidence gathered. The job of a president to me is to make absolutely sure before entering a war that his intelligence is correct and not simply accept poorly researched evidence without checking first.

At worst: At least one piece of evidence was fabricated (niger document), and what's more, at least the British intelligence, and quite possibly the US intelligence knew it too. Blair quite blatantly mislead the British parliment over the danger of the WMD's. What has not been outright lied about, or poorly checked by the two leaders and their intelligence organisations seemed to have been "sexed up" or spun by the respective governments to create a favourable impression.

Whatever the reasons, whichever is true, the failiure of either to do the job they are elected to do should reflect in votes cast in the election. They failed the people of their country in some way, that should not be ignored.

If I had to say, I'd guess that he and Blair lied, exaggerated and screwed up their jobs to justify to the world and their respective people the war. I have a belief that the war was decided on some time ago, all that remained was to justify it in the eyes of those most important, the WMD issue was one of them.

Quote:I only have one thing to say about this one. Much of the world's intelligence agreed with Bush, so if Bush is unfit to lead and worthy of ridicule, than so are many other world leaders. Thinking like that is awfully pessimistic, if you ask me.

I don't think this is quite accurate actually. It's true to say that many world leaders agreed with Bush and Blair that WMD's may exist, but unfair to say they would be at fault for the faulty intelligence. The vast majority of the intelligence was gathered by the US and UK, many countries probably didn't really have their respective intelligence agencies even looking for WMD's.

Also most of them were not prepared to go to war alongside the US and UK on the flimsy evidence offered to the UN. Most either did not care enough to do so, or disagreed, sometimes severely with the intelligence offerred. I think for the majority of the world, they would have demanded further proof and checks on the evidence gathered so far, that would have shown some rather gaping holes in the US/UK's case. Since most were not involving themselves in the war though, I don't see why they should be labelled as at fault for the intelligence failiure, that purely falls on the countries that gathered it, and the 45 or so that supported an invasion partly based on it.

Overall, I'm undecided if Iraq was worth it, especially with the train of thought that Bort offers to counter the advantage of removing Hussain. However, whichever way you care to look at it, anyone sensible can work out that Bush and Blair were either not doing the job you elected them for, or misleading you as a voter. If you believe it's the former, then you should consider this a point against Bush in the elections, if you think it's the latter, you need to think why they would do such a thing...

Quote:I'd also like to point out that claims that UN weapons inspectors and sanctions had failed to do their job is a little bit thin when, apparently, they did prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring wmd.

Well said, for all the advantages of removing Hussain, we were still wrong to insist that the inspectors were incompetent. If X hundred thousand allied troops and US experts can't find WMD's in the country, it's very likely they have not been there for some time...

One last thing to mention, Bush and co do of course claim that the WMD's were moved en masse to Syria, perhaps our next target to be lined up...

Oh and I forgot, why the hell do I have to say ook? Is it even a word? In which case what does ook mean?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

As shocking as this may seem to many of you, I do not directly blame George Bush for the initial stages of economic weakness that the US is currently suffering from. The effects of terrorism and the cyclic nature of economies cannot be fully discounted, so I will refrain here from trying to assign a specific percentage of the blame to him. I'll just say probably less than 50% and leave it at that. What I will focus on is George Bush's rather singleminded response to the problem - tax cuts.

The argument behind tax cuts as financial stimulus is fairly simple - increase peoples' spending power so that they buy more which means more products need to be made which means more jobs which in turn results in more spending, etc. etc. This is actually a not too bad argument, not great, but reasonable, the problem is that it only works if money supply is what is holding the economy back. Otherwise it's like prescribing penicillin to someone with lung cancer, penicillin is a great cure for a lot of diseases, but it ain't gonna do nuthin' for cancer. Another way to stimulate the economy that works the same way as tax cuts is cutting interest rates. The federal reserve repeatedly cut interest rates without it having any effect on the economy. This suggested that money supply was not what was holding back the economy and tax cuts were not the correct solution. The still very high jobless rate (2.3 million jobs lost under Bush) bears this belief out. In addition, the target of the tax cuts (middle class and up) was targeted to the groups more likely to stick $300 into the bank since, these being uncertain times and all, it can't hurt to have some money saved as opposed to the lower tax brackets who would use that $300 to, say buy that microwave oven they've been needing, thereby defeating the purpose of tax cuts as a fiscal stimulus. Mr. Bush, I ask you, if the economy is recovering as strongly as you claim, where are the jobs?

The other, much more pressing problem with Bush's tax cuts is the deficits they are causing. The problem is that Bush has raised government spending at the same time that he has cut government revenue. Clinton's last year in office saw a surplus of 2.4% in 2003, it was a deficit of 3.5%. This year, it is projected to be 4.3% and shows every sign of getting worse in coming years (unless, of course, a different person is elected president). (source : Economist Nov 6, 2003.) Bush has increased non-military discretionary spending by 21% (ie - its not just the war on terror that leads to his spending increases). Military expenditures are up 27%. Democrats are often accused of being "tax and spend" but George Bush is "borrow and spend." The interest payments on this debt being built up by George Bush will continue to affect the US for years to come, remaining an albatross on the neck of our economy (not to mention crippling our ability to carry on with the so called "war on terrorism.")

First of all, I am a registered democrat. Secondly, I can't just sit by and let a man be attacked so agressively while hearing only one side of the argument. Third, I hope my party forgives me for defending president Bush. Fourth, I will be voting for John Kerry but not because of the deaths of american soldiers in Iraq. President Bush isn't exactly the greatest president we've ever had but he most certainly deserves my respect as a human being.

I was in my livingroom on September 11th. I sat glued to the t.v. while my kids screamed at me for changing the channel from the cartoon network. They hate the news. I watched as President Bush grabbed the microphone at ground zero while standing next to an elderly crying firefighter. A firefighter sitting on the world trade center debris way up and out of range from where the president stood, yelled out that he couldn't hear the president talking. President Bush responded, "I can hear you. The whole world can hear you, and the people who tore down these buildings can hear you. Pretty soon they're going to hear all of us!"

This is a man who was anything but out-of-touch with the american people. He stood there and comforted me while I cried for the victims of that day. Later on when he attended the funeral I saw his father, who I have the greatest respect for, lean over and comfort the man who comforted me. It reminded me that he is just as human as I am. I said to myself, "He's man as I am. He puts his pants on one leg at a time just as I do."

Jobs lost? Yes indeed. That's my focus. Most of your arguments fall into the evidential orgy category. In other words, when you don't like someone you'll have no qualms about dressing them down to the very point of their shoes being untied. I don't like that at all. Using necessary force for the exact problem is a much better approach. Political overkill simply paints the prosecutor as cold and heartless.

Concerning this Iraq war.

1. How does any country generally fight its own dictators?
2. How long before the people of Iraq would have fallen into a civil war?
3. Humanitarian aid by a technologically advanced country has done the bare minimum to bring Iraq into the modern era of medicine and healthcare. Who else would have had the guts to provide such things to the Iraqi people?

I believe this is Bush's last war. The american people wouldn't allow him to make war with anyone else short of another terrorist attack. Having said that it is his last war, I think it is very likely that the liberation of Iraq is quite possibly the greatest humanitarian project thus far for the new millenium.

Quote:Democrats are often accused of being "tax and spend" but George Bush is "borrow and spend."

I am a middleclass american citizen who owns a house and one car. I have three kids and one wife. Show me one middleclass family that doesn't "borrow and spend". I don't do it because I like to. My wife and I do it because our kids need food, clothing, and other expenses such as toys to play with. I may be a democrat but I don't agree with "tax and spend". In fact I live the "borrow and spend". You can argue with Bush's "borrow and spend" strategy all you want but I don't hear any suggestions on how to make it better. We may not like living like this but what are the alternatives? Get taxed more so the government can have more control of our lives? No thankyou! In fact I'd wager you have no alternative and even if you did I guarantee your alternative wouldn't pull my family out of the "borrow and spend" set of rules laid down by common sense. Just about everyone in america borrows to spend more money.

I have faith in our economy. This is a good strong country with good moral laws that help stimulate growth and recovery. Is Bush's little "tax cut" plan really all that much of a help? Don't make me laugh. You said 50%! Give me a break! The president isn't a monarch! His little "tax cut" probably affected more like 25% of the economy not a whopping 50%. America's economy is greater than one single president. We have a congress too you know, and don't forget the judicial branch. People from all walks of life who are involved in every aspect of this country on the whole decide what will happen. That's why September 11th didn't decide the fate of this country's economical recession. People everywhere woke up, realized others needed help and came together.

Ok there's atleast one defense. Come on, somebody had to do it. No one else was saying anything and I just hate a fascist thread ____________Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

First of all I must tell you Consis, that you can be proud to be patriotic. This kind of feeling is the best strength of a country.

May be you got it with my english writing, but I'm french, and I don't claim anything but give my opinion. I'm willing to talk only about Iraqi war, because I think talking about economical decisions is a too subjective discussion. Nothing prove someone could have done better than Bush.

But with a subject as serious as war, There are enough facts that prove that Bush has made an error. A very expensive error.

The first thing I want to point is the first Iraq war,
that is not far away in the past I think. We'll take the example of Basrah : Near the end of the war, Basrah people were uprising against Hussein's dictatorship and began their freedom by their own hands.
But suddenly, war stopped. All the countries retired (as US as France as others, I must concede it), without arresting Hussein. And what happened about Basrah ? All identified "Rebels" were tortured and then killed by Hussein's loyalists (From memory, a little less than 10,000 victims).

Here is an extract of a letter where George Bush (Senior) explain the sudden stop of the Iraqi war.

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

(You will note some pertinents arguments given, that have been effectively reaveled as "true", seeing actual world diplomacy relationship)

So about the two points on Iraqi war "How long before the people of Iraq would have fallen into a civil war?" I would answer "Never", simply because these events cut any Iraqi people's hope to take freedom.
Iraqi peoples are realist enough to know that they do not have the means to take power by their own hands, and they feel betrayed from all other "democratic" countries. It is also why, during this second war, they took so many time to finally claim that they didn't want of Hussein's dicatorship.

The first Iraqi war (or more precisely, the end of first Iraqi war) was a political cheat. Why the second would not be one also ? Let's see.

One of the facts that keeps me thinking this war is probably an economical/political cheat and was probably the last thing that had to be done, is the position of George Bush (Senior) in the US Military equipment industry. We must not forget that for each bullet fired, each missile bombing, Mr Bush Senior earns money.

Another point is the Iraqi discussion with OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries), that was in a good shape before the war. Iraqi's petrol ressources are 20% of the world global resources : and Iraq is the ONLY Middle-east Petrol exporting country that has not joined OPEC organisation yet. So in one word, Iraqi's ressources, if they are well-exploited, defines world Petrol's price, despites OPEC's decisions.

Finally, the last point is the islamicization of the Iraq. Hussein's Baas political group were fervent anti-islamic guys. The main Iraq ethny (80% of the total Iraqi population) is fervent pro-islamic population. Islamic religion or not makes me indifferent, but we all know that real terrorists manipulates Islamic religion to recruit suicide-squads. The terrorists are the real winners in this war.

George bush as succeeded to transform the only middle-east country that was not a real threat to western countries into potentially the most dangerous of all: 20% world's petrol ressources combined with Terrorists maipulators that will gain political power (if it is a real democracy...), is like a second Arrabian state.

Finally, about the 11 September, I join "hamsi128" opinion. Bin laden is called a terrorist (and it is the entire truth) because he killed 5000 innocents people.
How is called Bush in Iraq ?

I think my english is not good enough to have a real discussion, but I hope you will understand me. If it is in interest for you, we'll discuss later about what a french people think now about George Bush and US's diplomaty, which is, also, a very important subject.

Quote:I was in my livingroom on September 11th. I sat glued to the t.v. while my kids screamed at me for changing the channel from the cartoon network. They hate the news. I watched as President Bush grabbed the microphone at ground zero while standing next to an elderly crying firefighter. A firefighter sitting on the world trade center debris way up and out of range from where the president stood, yelled out that he couldn't hear the president talking. President Bush responded, "I can hear you. The whole world can hear you, and the people who tore down these buildings can hear you. Pretty soon they're going to hear all of us!"

This is a man who was anything but out-of-touch with the american people. He stood there and comforted me while I cried for the victims of that day. Later on when he attended the funeral I saw his father, who I have the greatest respect for, lean over and comfort the man who comforted me. It reminded me that he is just as human as I am. I said to myself, "He's man as I am. He puts his pants on one leg at a time just as I do."

Come on. You can't evaluate a political figure based on how dramatic and emotional his speeches are! I'm sure that Hitler was also rather capable of saying things like that to win the hearts of the German people. I can't believe some people actually buy that. Maybe I should run for president, without learning anything about politics but just taking a couple of drama courses.

The point here is that he is a bad president, not a bad person. And his actual political decisions were wrong. This is all that matters.
____________

I would have to agree with you fellows, Bush Jr, he is just an awful president. In my honest opinion, I think Clinton was an awsome president, so what if he got his winkie sucked on a little, he was still an awsome president. The only thing bush is doing is makeing us hard working people pay more and more money for absolutly nothing.
____________

Bush: Saddam must be really pissed that we toppled him as head of state based on wrong info.
Cheney: Our intelligence may not be right, but we were right in bringing down a dictator
Tenet: Actually, we did get the right info, but it was wrongly interpreted
Rice: Saddam might sue the US for mass destruction in his country
Cheney: Whatever it is, we'll stick to our guns. No apologies
Bush: Saddam didn't have WMD but he has plans to do so. That's what I'll tell the world.
Powell: I'm gonna tell the UN that we did a pre emptive strike in order to stop Saddam from carrying out his plans.
Rice: But our WMD hunter David Kay said we were all wrong as there were no evidence of WMD's
Bush: We're not gonna say sorry
Rumsfeld: The heat must have fried Kay's brains after turning the desert upside down in his search.
Bush: Our space probes are already on Mars, and discovering things. Why TF can't we find WMD in Iraq?
Tenet: According to my sources, Saddam dumped all the evidence in the Tigris-Euphrates before we invaded Iraq.
Cheney: What will the world think of us now?
Bush: Who cares what the world thinks? As long as we believe we're right, and have the might to defeat terror.
Rice: People think we're playing dirty while France, for opposing us, is now smelling like Eau-de-Cologne
Bush: I don't care whether we stink or not. I want our agents to sniff out all those WMD's lurking around us.
Tenet: Our sources smell a trail from Pakistan to Libya.
Powell: Is your info reliable? The world already thinks that we lied about the Iraq affair.
Rumsfeld: It's about time we shifted the WMD issue away from Iraq and get the heat off us.
Cheney: After all the Iraqi screwup, you have a bigger fight coming than Saddam.
Bush: What's that?
Cheney: Democrat John Kerry, that war hero who wants your presidential position. He says you've been telling stories...

That's all I can get. BTW, I hope Bush loses this election.
____________
...

Quote:Come on. You can't evaluate a political figure based on how dramatic and emotional his speeches are! I'm sure that Hitler was also rather capable of saying things like that to win the hearts of the German people. I can't believe some people actually buy that. Maybe I should run for president, without learning anything about politics but just taking a couple of drama courses.

Hey check this out. Yet another comparison of Bush to Hitler. This is getting old. You people think that Hitler and Bush are related are the worst kinds of extremists that know of no other way to argue. It's people like you that end up bombing abortion clinics. What's next? Are you going to call me Stalin for disagreeing with you?

Let this be yet another example to what kind of people are out there trying to fix the problems of this country. Cynical extremist groups run by the likes of Hitler-phobic acolytes.

I'm a registered democrat and I'll be voting for Kerry thankyou very much. I certainly hope you abstain from the election as your vote would clearly be unwanted.
____________Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

Quote:
You people think that Hitler and Bush are related are the worst kinds of extremists that know of no other way to argue. It's people like you that end up bombing abortion clinics. What's next? Are you going to call me Stalin for disagreeing with you?

It rather sounds that you have boiled a bit over and are giving no good arguments to support your opinions. And yes, I believe that Stalin was homo sapience as much as my closest friends. Moreover, I think that everyone who can see a potential Hitler when looking into mirror is more open-minded and humanistic than the one who sees nothing but himself.

As we all feel that the above result is not true, IYY says (and I agree with him) that Bush´s gesture may have been a nice thing to do on the given day, but doesn´t tell us much more about him than that he´s good at making such gestures.
____________